USC faces the Texas Longhorns this week for the first time their epic championship matchup in the 2006 Rose Bowl. As you probably remember, Vince Young led the Longhorns to a 41-38 victory in that game, which as a result, made the Trojans lose.

But after it was found former running back Reggie Bush received impermissable benefits while in school, the Trojans were punished by seeing the final two wins of their 2004 National Championship season vacated, along with all 12 of its wins in 2005.

That's not all, though. The university is also claiming its loss vs. Texas in that legendary Rose Bowl was also vacated, literally claiming in its game notes for this week it was a "vacated loss."

It's nice USC at least mentions the Rose Bowl game, but the fact they refer to it as a "vacated loss" is interesting. It was actually hard to look back and find the initial ruling that led USC to believe the loss just didn't happen.

In 2011, BCS executive director Bill Hancock ruled the following:

"The BCS arrangement crowns a national champion, and the BCS games are showcase events for postseason football. One of the best ways of ensuring that they remain so is for us to foster full compliance with NCAA rules. Accordingly, in keeping with the NCAA's recent action, USC's appearances are being vacated."

The bolded part was our emphasis, as ESPN writer Ted Miller noted at the time, "The BCS ruling vacated the results of the 2005 Orange Bowl — the national title game for 2004 — as well as the Trojans participation in the 2006 Rose Bowl, in which USC lost to Texas, 41-38, in the championship game."

So what the BCS ruled was USC's appearance in the game was vacated. Essentially, USC can't claim it made a BCS appearance in 2006, but the record books still credit Texas with a win and USC with a loss. It's a tricky rule, but if you think about it logically, why would USC be punished by having a loss removed?

In conclusion, USC trying to claim a "vacated loss" is hilarious.

UPDATE: ESPN contacted USC sports information director Tim Tessalone, who claims the "vacated loss" is actually accurate. He was told in 2010 by then-NCAA director of stastitics Jim Wright that the university is not allowed to include games from that year in its official records.

"I have documentation in a letter sent in July 2010 to Wright noting all the changes he instructed us to make, including that losses had to be vacated," Tessalone told ESPN via email. "The letter also states that he had reviewed all our revisions and approved them."

The NCAA also backs USC's claims. Jeff Williams, the associate director of media coordination and statistics for the NCAA, told ESPN that USC's record for 2005 is listed as 0-0, and the 12 wins and the Rose Bowl loss were vacated.

We're still not sure how vacating a loss serves as punishment for USC, but the official rulebook seems tricky in this case. At the end of the day, though, we all know USC lost that game — and that its 4-0 record it claims against Texas should come with an asterisk.